The "Debt Ceiling" should be considered unconstitutional and any member of Congress threatening to default on our debt should be considered in open rebellion to the United States of America.
The 14th Amendment makes it clear that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.". Having a so-called Debt Ceiling is clearly a violation of the constitution.
Congress has already authorized said spending. Ergo the debt ceiling is simply a tool of rebellion used by some member of Congress.
This behavior should not be tolerated.
@rmaloley You have it backwards, though: the Constitution *requires* the debt ceiling.
The Constitution grants to Congress authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" and that's for a very good reason: if the country is going to obligate itself to debt, that could involve generations of citizens having to work to pay it off. Therefore, the representatives need to affirm that we're really all into it.
What we refer to as the #debtceiling is simply the amount that our representatives have so far agreed to obligate the country to.
As for authorizing said spending, remember that authorizing something doesn't mean it's possible. It's only a permission. Huge difference.
The Treasury brings in enough to pay US debts. There is no legal risk of default.
There is only a case where past Congresses authorized the spending of money that doesn't actually exist.
@volkris An interesting perspective that I disagree with. As Congress already budgeted the outlays, and as we incur debts and maintain a deficit, the "debt ceiling" is simply a fictitious way to describe our terrible fiscal policy.
Call it a "deadbeat limit." It's "an unlawful threat by the GOP to violate Sec 4 of the 14th Amndmt."
"You avoid being a deadbeat by paying the bills you agreed to pay. And you avoid enabling deadbeats by refusing to negotiate new terms with them after the fact, especially when the people who need the money—such as seniors, federal workers, families with children in poverty, and our veterans—are being taken as economic hostages."
@kathrynlaskey @rmaloley That misunderstands how the US government is set up, though, confusing the roles of the separate branches of government.
Congress only authorizes spending; it doesn't agree to pay anything. The other branch, the executive branch, is the one that actually agrees to pay bills based on money available in the Treasury.
Congress tells the executive branch, "IF you can afford it, then you may buy a new missile."
Legally the executive branch MUST pay debts before anything buying anything new. That's up to the president, though, so it's he, not the GOP, that's threatening to violate the 14th Amendment.
